Oog

[rowyn]

Succeeded at napping. Woke up. Feel much, much worse now. Ooooog.

At least I don't feel guilty about staying hom any more.

Comments

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Yeowch!

I have an extra abundance of good health at the moment; may I send it in your direction, to do battle with whatever afflicts you?

===|==============/ Level Head

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

*purrs the Rowyn comfortingly*

[minor-architect.livejournal.com]

If you didn't have a cat of your own already, I'd send Fyiara to you so's she could curl up on your chest and suck the sickness out of you. That's what she tries to do to me whenever I'm sick, anyway! :-)

Take care of yourself. Feel better soon.

[octantis.livejournal.com]

Argh. Keep resting, take it easy. I hope you feel better soon. :/

[kagetsume.livejournal.com]

Stay home tomorrow. That bug is sneaky. You think you're feeling okay, till about noon. Then you crash hard. :/

[nkcmike.livejournal.com]

You done the correct thing by staying home. Get well soon.

[skyflame.livejournal.com]

I did the same thing yesterday -- called in and then hit the NyQuil before going to bed again. I think the stuff finally cycled out of my system around 10 last night, which wasn't so good.

(meeps softly in sympathy)

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

I've noticed this with my colds that not only do they make me unable to sleep, but when I finally do, i almost always wake up sicker. leading me to conclude that actually, the bacteria/viruses have leanred how to subvert my body _much more efficiently_ while I am asleep. It seems that sometimes, when you're sick, sleep +is+ the enemy after all (laughs)

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

Aww, I'm so sorry you're sick.

Get well soon, Rowyn! I'd FTP you some soup if FTP were STP. Or if I were better at |soup|.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Ack! I feel awful for not posting you a "get well" note sooner - but, please, get well sooner!

Was going to post on your comment about "fantasy" in the non-traditional fantasy sense, but I don't want to wander into TMI territory. So I'll post my comment here on a totally unrelated post!

Anyway, I've been thinking on the topic of what constitutes "fantasy." I've recently been brushing up on some works by H. G. Wells and Jules Verne - the type of stuff that at the time was supposed to be realistic, and hence not "fantasy." A review I read of The Island of Dr. Moreau suggested that H. G. Wells wanted to be brutally "realistic" in a certain sense, but nonetheless he has the main character be cast adrift - and rescued - three times (depending on how you count) in addition to ending up in the middle of a bizarre circumstance, and in addition to just happening to be of a profession to give him special notice in the eyes of the doctor and to have reason to have heard of him before, back in London.

I've thought of "fantasy" in connection to the mystery "adventures" of Poirot and of (by the same author) Miss Marple. Somehow, Poirot simply cannot go on vacation without being right in the middle of a murder. Ditto for Marple. It's as if they have some sort of an aura of mischief. After several such coincidences, I wouldn't be surprised if hosts might start thinking twice about inviting either one of them. Sure, there's a perfectly logical explanation for each incident, and it's not like they were to blame ... but, boy, statistically speaking, it's kind of suspicious, isn't it?

But that's not necessarily "fantasy" in the same sense. The traditional D&D campaign has "fantasy" in the form of widespread magic, but it's not necessarily serial coincidence that the PCs find themselves in adventures: Rather, they are adventurers. They deliberately wander around in a world where most folk have the sense to stay in town, they pursue rumors about monsters and treasure, and they boldly walk right into areas on the map marked, "Here there be dragons." Except ... somehow they run into enemies who are *just the right* challenge level for themselves, and they keep running into progressively bigger enemies and bigger treasures. Hmm.

Anyway, thinking along these lines has made me very self-conscious about plot developments for my RPGs. For my current campaign, it was a gross enough coincidence that my PCs happened to run into a ghost ship and through accident ended up in another world. After that, my reason for the adventure was that they were looking for the Ocean's Edge to get home - and hence went into uncharted seas rumored to be full of monsters - but also that certain entities sought them out specifically because they were not of this world. They ended up on the Isle of Dr. Moreau because of magic that would take them where they wanted to go ... but each of the players specified different things on his or her mind, and this is what I came up with to satisfy all of their conditions (in some form). But if I keep, say, having them blunder right into various locations straight from the works of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells at just the dramatically appropriate moment, that's going to push credibility.

"Gross coincidence" is probably the way to describe it. If there's ONE amazing coincidence, then it's just focus selection: We want to read a story about interesting circumstances, and at least one major coincidence is required for that. But for a coincidence to be required for every further adventure, following the same character, it strains credulity.